clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 138

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 10:46pm

 

According to the Sanders campaign, we "do not have the right to feel threatened" by the Sanders-inspired violence.

 

TALKING POINTS MEMO: Sanders Adviser: 'No One Had The Right To Feel Threatened' At NV Convention

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/weaver-nevada-convention

[binau]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 11:00pm

Please, no one can complain that the media is somehow bias in favour for Sanders, when for the past year it has been the complete opposite.

Jane Sanders might have bankrupted a college, but Hillary Clinton is involved with establishments that bankrupted the WORLD economy! 

Jane Sanders might have bankrupted a college, but Hillary Clinton voted in favour for a war that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people - and that still haunts us to this day in the form of islamic terrorism.

Jane Sanders might have bankrupted a college, but Bill Clinton signed DOMA, reinforcing a belief that gay relationships were somehow not equal to those of heterosexual relationships.

Jane Sanders might have bankrupted a college, but Hillary Clinton has supported many free trade deals that have likely led to the loss of many jobs.


Jane Sanders might have bankrupted a college, but Hillary Clinton does not support a health care system that in effect would stop families becoming bankrupt should they face medical complications without adequate health care coverage.

I know it is kind of irritating to continue this debate, but it is a bit overwhelming at times that this thread is about 100% in favour of Hillary Clinton (which is certainly not representative of the US population given the primary voting history) and I think it's important to reinforce some of the important issues here.



 

 

Updated On: 5/18/16 at 11:00 PM

[binau]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 11:01pm

.

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 11:51pm

Thanks qolbinau, this is some weird stuff on these boards. The Hillary people are really strange.  Get over yourselves, we're going to vote for her.  Stop whining like a bunch of bitches.

 

[Steve C.]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 3:05am

You forgot to mention, Jane Sanders bankrupted a college, but she's the one doing her and Bernie's taxes.

No wonder they haven't been released. (and now that the end is near, I'm sure they never will).

[binau]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 6:13am

They have released some I believe, but again - this is just such a small issue. Their wealth is so unsubstantial that it's not worth bothering about. 

To put it in perspective, Hillary Clinton earns more from one GS speech than Bernie does over an entire year!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 8:25am

 

And Donald Trump makes even more from speeches. Guess what? That's not the point.

We're electing who gets to nominate lifetime Supreme Court justices and decide whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb, not who makes more or less on the rubber-chicken circuit.

And, for the record, Jane release ONE year's tax return. One only: 2014. NOT the year she got the $200,000 golden parachute for bankrupting the college.

Go away, Bernie Sanders. We have an election to win.

 

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 8:37am

Actually, Sanders has not released his tax returns. He released one form 1040, but no accompanying schedules which show the sources of his income and the deductions he claimed. When public officials release their tax returns, they release the entire return, because that is where the transparency occurs. It is, indeed, the only reason Sanders has had the basis to bash Secretary Clinton for the amount she earns from speeches.

As far as the bankrupting of a college is concerned, it reflects both Sanders' fiscal reasoning that huge debt is just fine if it gets you what you want. Yet, there are consequences to such choices, and in that case, the consequence is the closure of a college, loss of jobs, and students left with their own debt and no degrees. Sander's plans would create a minimum of 18 trillion in new debt, even after his taxes increases, and that should worry any American.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 10:10am

 

Even salon.com is turning on him.

 

 

SALON.COM: Sorry, Bernie: I love you, but this is over — and getting embarrassing

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/18/sorry_bernie_i_love_you_but_this_is_over_and_getting_embarrassing/

 

[StageManager2]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 10:11am

Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html?ref=politics&_r=1

 

"Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator’s team was 'not thinking about' the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president."

 

I hope Sanders et al. become personas non grata within the Democratic Party.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 10:38am

Et al?  You mean the genuine progressives that Hillary I-Must-Be-Kept-Left Clinton needs?

[Kad]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 11:34am

You mean Hillary I-Voted-with-Sanders-93%-of-the-Time-in-the-Senate Clinton? Hillary 11th-most-liberal-Senator-during-tenure Clinton?

She's not as left as Bernie Bread-Lines-Are-Good Sanders, but come on. Updated On: 5/19/16 at 11:34 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 12:01pm

Sorry, but no legitimate liberal or progressive wholeheartedly embraces, and supports, Obama's unlawful and unjustified expansion of the US Drone Strike program in sovereign nations like Pakistan, which has been responsible for the killing of thousands and thousands of innocent women, children and families.  She did (and still does to an extent).

 

From April 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often-unsure-about-who-will-die.html?_r=1

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 12:37pm

After a week of reading posts of FB friends now smugly turning from Sanders to Jill Stein, I'm appalled.  These protest decampments can only take place after the luxury of 8 years of a Democratic presidency, when so many challenging issues were resolved and stands were taken against the entrenched and intractable Republican apparatus, against insurmountable odds. Rather than fight to build on the Obama years' hard-won achievements, a climate of naval-gazing and finger-pointing has emerged.  Obama "disappointed," and everything in his wake is corrupt, compromise is corporate suck-up and anyone elected with large sums of money is suspect and unworthy.  These elitist purists care not a whit for the half-a-century impact of the make-up of the Supreme Court or countless threats to myriad accomplishments (health care, equality, social justice; unemployment). The wide and diverse Obama coalition enlarged and energized the Democratic Party. To hear a candidate dismiss -- and solicit boos -- regarding the value and resourcefulness of the organization that inspired that genuinely populist movement is disgusting.  Go ahead, pull a lever for Jill Stein.  The rest of us want someone to run the country. And will make sure we get one in Clinton.

Updated On: 5/19/16 at 12:37 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 12:51pm

Very well said, Auggie.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 12:52pm

Kad, you are getting your information from the New York Times, a 1%-run media operation that has been maniacal in its support of Hillary from moment one..  Here is some clear-eyed factchecking:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:08pm

You;'re delusional. The Times has been attacking Hillary for years.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:17pm

It's a special feeling when Hillary supporters call someone delusional.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:30pm

The New York Times were also the ones that started the 'Hillary is getting investigated by the FBI" meme, when they published their erroneous article last July. Needless to say, they had to publish a correction, which they hid inside the paper instead of the big headline the first article was, but the damage was done. Since then, both Republicans and Sanders supporters continue to trumpet the supposed investigation and impending indictment.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:40pm

Borstalboy said: "Kad, you are getting your information from the New York Times, a 1%-run media operation that has been maniacal in its support of Hillary from moment one..  Here is some clear-eyed factchecking:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/"

That article doesn't debunk the 93% statistic I cited- you realize that, right? It just breaks down the specific instances in which Sanders and Clinton did not vote the same way.

Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal senator during her tenure.

Is the Daily Kos an evil 1%-run media operation? I don't know.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:41pm

I personally don't think there is anything there with the email situation but let's be clear: there's no "supposed" investigation, unless you suddenly think the FBI is lying to the general public and to the White House for some reason? Why would they continue to give monthly updates on their continuing probe/investigation if it's not actually real, as you suggest or claim? 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:44pm

Kad said: "Borstalboy said: "Kad, you are getting your information from the New York Times, a 1%-run media operation that has been maniacal in its support of Hillary from moment one..  Here is some clear-eyed factchecking:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/"

That article doesn't debunk the 93% statistic I cited- you realize that, right? It just breaks down the specific instances in which Sanders and Clinton did not vote the same way.

Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal senator during her tenure.

Is the Daily Kos an evil 1%-run media operation? I don't know.

 

 

"

 

Sadly, the Daily Kos doesn't factor in her policy positions as Secretary of State, which included an expansion of the unlawful Drone Strike program -- leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent women & children in Pakistan -- and an overall push for foreign interventionism, which eventually led to the demise (and subsequent rise in terrorism) of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:51pm

 

Hillary's email server is the subject of an investigation, but no one in the public or the media can possibly know whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target," which is a term used ONLY when a prosecutor looks at the results of the investigation and determines that there is evidence linking that person to a crime.

The investigation is not yet complete. If the investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime--or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct--at that point the investigation will close without any charges filed.

I'm not a betting man but fifty bucks says the investigation is closed soon, because, as we all know, no crime was committed.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 1:56pm

Oh, for sure. I don't disagree with you, PJ. I just had a problem with StageManager suggesting that there isn't actually an investigation or probe taking place by using the word "supposed." We know for a fact it's happening. It's just a question of what the final outcome will be! 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 5/19/16 at 10:03pm

So...

 

I'm no fan of DWS.  In fact, I can't stand her.  Look at the shameful way in which she's supported predatory payday lenders this year.  An absolutely dreadful politician.  That said, I think using that word isn't very helpful for this discussion. Whether you intend it or not, it's a word favored by misogynists and will distract from any valid points you may be making.  

 

But, let's get real here, everyone knows that DWS has favored Hillary from the start.  What a shock!  The establishment favors the establishment candidate.  But that is not why we are where we are today.  We're here because, plain and simple, more people voted for Hillary than Bernie.  Period.  It's time for the straw grasping to end.  Why not wrap up the Sanders campaign with dignity as, no doubt, millions of Californians will vote for him and have their voices heard before we pivot to the general with, of course, Hillary as our candidate?